What has happened to Canon?

J

Jad

Suspended / Banned
Messages
34
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
I have been a Canon user since 1970 starting with the F1. I currently am using the 5D11. I have been waiting years for Canon to come out with a larger mega pixel camera with improved sensor technology. The Nikon D800 has been on the market for over two years and Canon as not answered with a new model. Now Sony has just introduced a full sensor mirror less camera with 36+ mega pixel that will take Canon lenses. I have heard rumors for years that something big is in the works but nothing ever shows up. I am starting to wonder about Canon as the leader in digital photography equipment market.
 
Last edited:
Question I would be asking is why do we NEED more than 24MP leave alone 36MP? Besides would you rather have incremental steps and problems with those steps or bigger steps once lessons have been learned and a more refined product?
 
The 5D mark 3 was released at around the same time as the D800? And the 1DX at about the same time as the D4 so Canon have been competing in terms of new models. Obviously its not all about the megapixels but the D4 is only 16MP?
I dont even know what Canon are doing with their sensors though.
 
Canon are doing just fine, and offer the best tools for the job in many photographers' cases.

If you're that worried/impatient for more megapixels (why do you think 36 will be enough / when will you get bored with that and decide you need more?), just buy some medium format gear and be done with it, or continue using large format film.
 
Be patient, and it will happen - probably next year. IMHO, the only thing that makes sense of Canon's recent product announcements is a strategic move upmarket, in both stills and video.

But maybe you should hire a Nikon D800, and see just how little difference 36mp makes over 20-24ish. Sure it's there, but it needs very sharp lenses and immaculate technique to realise it. Judging by the superb images on your blog, maybe you have both :) but even then the difference is marginal and you'll most likely only notice it in the centre of some very large prints, and close to the plane of actual focus (as opposed to within the DoF zone).

A really useful increase in resolution needs a doubling of linear pixels, which is 4x total - ie, from 20-24mp to 80-100mp - and some very, very, sharp lenses. If ultimate sharpness is what you're after, then bigger is always best - medium format. It allows lenses to perform much better, which is really the key to sharpness, rather than just throwing pixels at it.
 
Last edited:
Canon are making their own sensors, which has worked fine for them for a long time.

But you can see that they are slowly falling behind. They had the same crop sensor in about 3 generations of cameras now.

Nikon buys their sensors from the best manufacturer at the time, which means they will usually have more and better choices than Canon.

If you NEED 36 MP, buying the Sony should not be out of the question?
 
EspressoJunkie said:
I was a Nikon user up until about a week ago, before switching and getting a 5dmkiii. The fact that the only Nikon camera that had the features/build that I wanted had 36mp was one factor in me deciding not to get it.
Click to expand...

Why does the camera having 36mp stop you from buying it, surely that's only one element of the camera and a purchase should be based on the camera as a whole.
 
Having seen what the Canon 5D3 can do with 22Mp and the new 70D can do with 20Mp I really don't see the need for going to a larger Mp count. Surely, just putting nearly twice the amount of pixels on the same size sensor will reduce the size of the light gathering photosites and that will end up producing more noise.

Unless Canon change their production methods for their sensors I think piling on more pixels will be a backward step. The IQ of the newer sensors is superb, I'm sure Canon will eventually get around to a FF sensor with Dual Pixel technology which will be the next step forward IMO.
 
I think the D800 did more to boost sales of the 5DIII. A lot of people didn't feel the need to have 36mp RAW files so they moved to Canon and the far more capable and user friendly 5DIII.

If the D800 had been released with 24mp I'd still be a Nikon shooter.
 
-Rob- said:
I think the D800 did more to boost sales of the 5DIII. A lot of people didn't feel the need to have 36mp RAW files so they moved to Canon and the far more capable and user friendly 5DIII.

If the D800 had been released with 24mp I'd still be a Nikon shooter.
Click to expand...

In my opinion Nikon would have been far better separating the D800 line into a 24MP 'normal' D800, and a 36 MP D800E. This would have given people the choice, and also provided a true successor to the D700.

There was more to my switch than the resolution, but it was certainly an important factor.
 
36mpx is finally more than a 35mm higher end quality film scan. It's about time digital caught up to film ;)
 
It's not the size of the MP count, it's the quality of the sensor ;)

On a serious note, it seems that people are assuming that higher MP's result in better photos. It doesn't, at the end of the day it's the person behind the camera, not his MP count! And if you also read about the new Sony camera, it has a higher MP count because of the lenses as several lenses result in Vignetting of which the sensor automatically crops itself to compensate for this. It's still an amateur / semi pro body aimed at the higher end of the market for people looking for a bit more quality compared to the lower end bodies etc. I'll stick to my 1DX, it's large, it gets the job done.
 
modchild said:
Having seen what the Canon 5D3 can do with 22Mp and the new 70D can do with 20Mp I really don't see the need for going to a larger Mp count. Surely, just putting nearly twice the amount of pixels on the same size sensor will reduce the size of the light gathering photosites and that will end up producing more noise.

Unless Canon change their production methods for their sensors I think piling on more pixels will be a backward step. The IQ of the newer sensors is superb, I'm sure Canon will eventually get around to a FF sensor with Dual Pixel technology which will be the next step forward IMO.
Click to expand...

+1

less photons per pixel so worse sensor noise plus more transistors generating heat so more thermal noise.

Next generation I'd expect multi pixel averaging and a serious look at the output of some of the world leading university computational photography labs.
 
D800 sensor also has better DR range as well, match that of film. I got a d600 at moment, the DR range is almost as good. I often don't need to worry about blow high light / shadow noise any more. Canon are bring out a new range of sensors , still not quite match Sonys thought. I don't think 36mp is too much, film offers much res then. It is all about progress, if every body think oh 20mp is good enough then we will never get any progress....
 
EspressoJunkie said:
I was a Nikon user up until about a week ago, before switching and getting a 5dmkiii. The fact that the only Nikon camera that had the features/build that I wanted had 36mp was one factor in me deciding not to get it.
Click to expand...

Me too 36 mp not necessary, my D700 was ready for an upgrade but i think the 5D MKII is a much better all round camera than the D800 so i came back to Canon and really glad i did.
 
I am sure higher mp will be there sooner or later, if not within 1-2 years then after that for sure, slowly slowly they keep new cameras at larger mp, say 18-24mp, then when people are getting used to that then they will put more slightly, Nikon and sony started to go above 30mp, sure Canon will not stop there as well, they may produce 24-30mp soon maybe next year then they will go beyond 30mp, so it is just a matter of time.

For me, more mp or not is not a big deal, i welcome any improvement, and if more mp can give me something then why not, 1DX high ISO capability is something that i am happy with now since many years, i didn't use video feature yet but who knows when i will, and having more mp is not a problem for me, after using my digital MF i am used to big files or more mp, so i will be happy to have those bigger mp 30+ on any DSLR i can buy, hope with Canon sooner or later, if they didn't i will not give up on Canon at all.
 
I could easily print A1+ from 5DIII. Maybe it will not be enough for some car manufacturer's bilboard but pretty good. But even then they are specifically after medium format shots, so the 36MP jobby is not a game changer...

On the other hand how many lenses can resolve 36MP (bayer sensor)? According to DxO not very many. Perhaps canon is working on a whole new sensor (maybe foveon type) to release a proper high MP body.
 
daugirdas said:
I could easily print A1+ from 5DIII. Maybe it will not be enough for some car manufacturer's bilboard but pretty good. But even then they are specifically after medium format shots, so the 36MP jobby is not a game changer...

On the other hand how many lenses can resolve 36MP (bayer sensor)? According to DxO not very many. Perhaps canon is working on a whole new sensor (maybe foveon type) to release a proper high MP body.
Click to expand...

This is a logic and nice thinking, Canon doesn't want to do a mistake to produce a camera with 36-40mp and the glasses are not matching the quality, so they are better working on glasses before to resolve that higher mp, if they succeeded then this will give them a big advantage over Sony/Nikon somehow, but who knows what they are thinking about nowadays.

Also, they are not ignoring those beginners/novice as well, they keep producing those affordable smaller cameras but with big improvements, so they keep all skills happy, they don't think about pros and advanced shooters only and i respect that a lot with Canon, but sure even Nikon doing the same i think.
 
By the way, i tested my large format lens on my large format camera with DSLR[5D classic and my family 500D] as a back, and WOW, it is very long dedicated macro lens but the quality is out of world, even my Canon Macro didn't come close, not sure that new Canon macro lens can beat it too, i only say that quality or sharpness with my digital MF macro lens on Hasselblad body, so i am sure it is possible to produce nice high quality lenses to match big MP resolution.
 
Not everyone would be interested in more mega pixels... But I would.. as a 400m prime lens user on a sports field.. the more cropping in options the better :)
 
There's also the question of processing power in writing large files to the card. In pro spec bodies like the D4 & 1DX that require high frame rate and good buffer capacity perhaps that is the bottleneck that precludes the use of high MP sensors at the moment.

Whether Canon made a conscious decision to keep the 1DX at 18 MP for frame rate or if it was because noise at high ISO was better than the 5D3 I've no idea. They seemed to have made a determined effort to return to the top of the pile with the 1DX and perhaps the 22 MP sensor didn't allow them to meet some of the spec in the design.
 
KIPAX said:
Not everyone would be interested in more mega pixels... But I would.. as a 400m prime lens user on a sports field.. the more cropping in options the better :)
Click to expand...

That is one main advantage why i want more mp, i crop even using crop factor body, and with 1DX i still like the crops over my 1D3, but it is not perfect crops yet, so that i was hoping if more mp is there so i can crop more or even same crop ratio and retain high mp, say cropping 36mp to 22mp, but cropping 18mp or 10mp what i can get then?

Same with wildlife or birds, i don't have long primes lenses, so that i always do tight crops.
 
IMHO, it's not about megapixels and people get way too hung up on them (either saying it's really important or that it's totally immaterial), it's about this....

hyeongsoong said:
D800 sensor also has better DR range as well, match that of film.
Click to expand...

Canon - even on their top end cameras - are way behind the rest of the world in this regard from what I can see.
 
Berliner said:
Canon are making their own sensors, which has worked fine for them for a long time.

But you can see that they are slowly falling behind. They had the same crop sensor in about 3 generations of cameras now.
Click to expand...

....The 70D has a new technology crop sensor and I expect this same groundbreaking technology will be applied to the Canon range in due course.

Canon have always been 'slow' to follow others but usually launch a much better product than their rivals when they are ready. It happened with the first autofocus and DSLR models - It's where Canon nudged Nikon over to become a market equal and some say leader.
 
arad85 said:
IMHO, it's not about megapixels and people get way too hung up on them .
Click to expand...

I ahve a feeling the OP is hung up about it.. but for ther rest we are just responsing.. yeagh would be nice or no cant be bothered is hardy getting hung up about it... personally i hadnt given it any thought.. just responding to the thread..otherwise happy to plod along :)
 
KIPAX said:
I ahve a feeling the OP is hung up about it.. but for ther rest we are just responsing..
Click to expand...
I wasn't making any statement about the responses in the thread specifically. What I was saying is that any discussion of the D800 normally has some form of statement that the D800 has 36Mpixels and that it's either a positive or negative depending on the viewpoint of the poster. Not many people lead with "The D800 has over 2 stops more dynamic range than the 5DIII/1DX". For most photographers, that's probably more important....
 
I'm surprised anyone knowing what they are talking about is concerned with megapixels...
 
I think that it is DR that Canon lag behind. Sony seem to produce great sensors. Very few people who are not pros will change brand just because of a single camera release. There is usually a pro and con list for every camera and for anyone who likes to photograph a variety of subjects finding the perfect body is difficult.

If I shot a lot of landscapes I would have a D800 simply for its resolution and DR. And I would use my 5D3 and MkIV for sports and wildlife. But I don't and for me the 5D3 makes a decent fist of all types of photography. Worse in some areas, better in others.

I considered changing to Nikon a while ago. I was frustrated that Canon seemed to be promising a lot and delivering little. Then the 1DX and 5D3 were released and moved the game on for Canon. Im glad now that I didn't change. It would have cost me some serious money to change and taught me a valuable lesson about not chasing photographic nirvana which in reality doesn't exist.
 
Gaz J said:
Whether Canon made a conscious decision to keep the 1DX at 18 MP for frame rate or if it was because noise at high ISO was better than the 5D3 I've no idea. They seemed to have made a determined effort to return to the top of the pile with the 1DX and perhaps the 22 MP sensor didn't allow them to meet some of the spec in the design.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is both. I have seen real life files from 1DX and rest assured it can print just as large as 5D3, but there is virtually no noise in the shadows even when it's pushed over 1.5-2 stops. So DR is massive, even if you have to play with RAW a little. So yeah, I want one more than D800
 
I certainly stirred up a lot of passion with my post question. My style of photography is mainly with landscape photography. I use my digital camera like I did my view camera. Setting up a tripod, manual exposure, mirror lockup, ect. I am not fixated just on pixel count but have been waiting for the next generation of sensors that would improve the overall quality on the image. I have heard rumors they may introduce a medium format camera, and I would certainly be interested in that. Canon has been quiet for a long time and it makes me wonder if they are still in the game.
 
Jad said:
I certainly stirred up a lot of passion with my post question. My style of photography is mainly with landscape photography. I use my digital camera like I did my view camera. Setting up a tripod, manual exposure, mirror lockup, ect. I am not fixated just on pixel count but have been waiting for the next generation of sensors that would improve the overall quality on the image. I have heard rumors they may introduce a medium format camera, and I would certainly be interested in that. Canon has been quiet for a long time and it makes me wonder if they are still in the game.
Click to expand...

If you are desperate just get an older Hasselblad model (or equivalent). It will be years till (and if) Canon will release (or more likely buy out) MF system. And even then it won't be "cheap".
 
Jad said:
Canon has been quiet for a long time and it makes me wonder if they are still in the game.
Click to expand...

....Canon are too successful not to still be in the game!

Historically they tend to develop their products to the point where they themselves are satisfied before they offer thenm to the public. Personally I applaud that approach.

Their main rival Nikon dashed out their versions of autofocus etc back in the early days and it was awkward and rather Windows-esque in UI. But Canon spent another 12 months IIRC and then launched the EOS which was a complete rethink with main emphasis on the UI (User Interface). Canon are the Apple of the DSLR camera world. I had many Nikons before I switched to Canon. I keep checking out the Nikons and they are very good but I still prefer the Canons regarding DSLR.

It's healthy that rivalry between Nikon and Canon keep them both honest and favour us users.

There's currently plenty of camera choice out there so why constantly chase whatever the latest technology is. Technology never stands still and what you buy this year will be 'out-of-date' next year - So what if it enables you to create good pictures.
 
Last edited:
RedRobin said:
....Canon are too successful not to still be in the game!

Historically they tend to develop their products to the point where they themselves are satisfied before they offer thenm to the public. Personally I applaud that approach.

Their main rival Nikon dashed out their versions of autofocus etc back in the early days and it was awkward and rather Windows-esque in UI. But Canon spent another 12 months IIRC and then launched the EOS which was a complete rethink with main emphasis on the UI (User Interface). Canon are the Apple of the DSLR camera world. I had many Nikons before I switched to Canon. I keep checking out the Nikons and they are very good but I still prefer the Canons regarding DSLR.

It's healthy that rivalry between Nikon and Canon keep them both honest and favour us users.

There's currently plenty of camera choice out there so why constantly chase whatever the latest technology is. Technology never stands still and what you buy this year will be 'out-of-date' next year - So what if it enables you to create good pictures.
Click to expand...

Golly. With all that extra development time it's a shame that their cameras have had a couple of issues upon release :lol: although to be fair Nikon have had their issues too.

I wouldn't describe either as the Apple of the DSLR world. I'd say more like VW... staid, middle of the road, a middle aged mans choice, maybe, with a reputation for quality that maybe reality doesn't live up to reality once JD and others do their sums.
 
5D3 is the best bang for buck they've ever made, not to mention the best all rounder for any situation.

Think peeps get to hung up on numbers and figures rather than using it in the real world, once you know what they're capable of all the stats render to insignificance
 
I dont know why but I always come back to Canon. They might not be the best technically but theres just something I like about the whole system, im not entirely sure what but I still get great images and thats all I care about :)
I also love the look you get from Canons, I dont know how to describe it but all the photos have a certain look/feel and you can often tell whether it was shot with a Canon.
 
buckas said:
Think peeps get to hung up on numbers and figures rather than using it in the real world, once you know what they're capable of all the stats render to insignificance
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it doesn't render to insignificance. If it did, we'd all be taking perfect pictures with our phones and there'd be no real need for any numbers at all.

More dynamic range is just that, the ability to capture (and hence display - or select) more range. Same with tonal and colour range. Mpixels help cropping too, always assuming the lens is capable of resolving as much onto the sensor.
 
woof woof said:
I wouldn't describe either as the Apple of the DSLR world. I'd say more like VW... staid, middle of the road, a middle aged mans choice, maybe, with a reputation for quality that maybe reality doesn't live up to reality once JD and others do their sums.
Click to expand...

....Er, I wouldn't describe my performance modified VW as staid or middle of the road.

However, I agree that my Apple Mac analogy may not have been perfect.

Sorry for the momentary digression, but.

RED_Rivage.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top